White Americans' majority to end by mid-centuryWASHINGTON – The estimated time when whites will no longer make up the majority of Americans has been pushed back eight years — to 2050 — because the recession and stricter immigration policies have slowed the flow of foreigners into the U.S.

Census Bureau figures released Wednesday update last year's prediction that white children would become a minority in 2023 and the overall white population would follow in 2042. The earlier estimate did not take into account a drop in the number of people moving into the U.S. because of the economic crisis and the immigration policies imposed after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.

The 2050 estimate is one of four projections released that is based on rates for births and deaths and a scenario in which immigration continues its more recent, slower pace of adding nearly 1 million new foreigners each year. Demographers said that scenario offers the best look for now at the future demographic makeup based on current conditions, rather than other models which assume higher rates of immigration...

Speaking as the quintessential all-American mutt, and somebody fully trained in the science of genetics, I cannot wait until this type of thinking dies.

"Race" is a purely social construct. Not that I'm ignoring it, you would have to be a fool to believe racism is not alive and well. But on an actual biological level, the idea of race is meaningless. It's an outmoded way of thinking; one that never had much meaning in the first place.

Mofo and Trekgeezer are right: by the strictest biological definition there is only *one* human race.

My anthropology degree is almost antique, but:

I have to wonder how the people who write these articles are defining terms. It makes all the difference in the world if they are calssifying people as being of a certain "race" based upon what group those people identify themselves as/with culturally, or their origins/ancestry as recorded on census data or other 'outside' identifiers. How the 'data' was arrived at alters the scope of the interpretation.

There are people in this world who would identify all people with any trace of 'non-white' ancestry as being 'non-white'. By the same criteria, IE having any *trace* of 'white' ancestry, most people could be classed with equal accuracy as being 'white'. Regardless of what 'race' one claims to be, it would be quite the challenge to find any individuals who do not have some degree of mixing, no mattter how small.

For the most part, the human genome is a collection of traits that exhibit ranges of variation: stature, colouration, proportions. Relatively few inherited traits are what is called 'discrete': either there or not there. So there are few decisive identifiers available as to what 'group' a particular individual may claim ancestry from. Chances are these days that any particular individual can exhibit traits from a number of origins. Genetically we are slowly melding together.

So yes, TG, we are headed toward a nice average brown. There will likely be some variation for quite some time to come, social factors being an influence in mate selection, but the range should narrow over time.

Which is a long-winded way of saying: yeah, Mofo is right. "Race" is purely a social construct; on an actual biological level, the idea of race is meaningless. It's an outmoded way of thinking; one that never had much meaning in the first place.

While it's pretty obvious cultural and social definitions of race are largely meaningless scientifically (as one example, you used to be able to change your race by walking across certain state lines if you had the proper ancestry), I think the total rejection of the concept of race in a scientific sense is not quite accurate. The term race in biology is basically an interbreeding subgroup with some genetic characteristics in common.

The way I see this term applied in biology to non-human animals and then rejected outright for humans doesn't make particular sense. For example, the numerous North American gray wolf races are almost as closely related genetically as major human population groups, but their differentiation into various sub-groups is not disputed (though the exact way they're divided and number of sub-groups certainly is). Morphologically, there are sub-species that are far harder to distinguish accurately than the various human groups.

Basically, I feel the term is frequently rejected outright for non-scientific (political) reasons. But, I'd agree that there isn't anything to be gained by the usage of these terms, so it's not something that worries me in the slightest.

Tou guys are right. Race in the biological sense is meaningless. Race in the cultural sense means something. I could care less what color my neighbor is, or what color my daughter's boyfriend is, for that matter! But what they believe and how they act, well, that I care about.

But what do people believe? What cultural values and heritage do they bring to the big old American table? How do those beliefs, morals, and values affect their behavior? Those things are worth considering.

For all its corruption, America still has a constitution and government superior to most of the rest of the world. We are free to keep a majority of what we earn each year, we have the right to vote for our leaders (even if the choices aren't always that great!), and we can watch B-movies full of gratuitous sex and violence if we want to, or keep the old satellite dish welded to "Family" stations. Every one of us has the right to marry when and whom we choose, and to buy or build a house - presuming we can afford it - in any nieghborhood we want. Why do we Americans have all these freedoms?

Because America was founded by a "race" of men and women to whom the rights of the individual were precious, and the powers of the government subject to limits by the people. By that I mean our elder cousins across the pond from England, and a few other European countries. But mainly England, with its quaint notions of personal liberty and limited government.

Not all people share these values, and if those people become a majority, can our freedoms remain intact? Look at the miserable failure at self-government that is endemic in much of the world - whether it be Latin America, Southeast Asia, or equatorial Africa. If those people want to come here and learn from our system and assimilate into a culture that is much, much better than what they left behind, then more power to them. There's always a little more room at the table. But if what they want is to re-establish a little bit of home-styled anarchy or theocracy or mayhem on American shores . . . I'd just as soon they didn't come.

All of this may not have much to do with the subject of this thread, but given the general bashing they receive at the hands of so many academics and politicians these days, I just want to say that I for one am grateful that this country was founded by good old WASPS from north-western Europe. Those old fellers really knew how to build a republic. A shame we've screwed it up so badly.

Lewis SmithScots-Irish with a bit of Cherokee in the mix6th Generation Texan